iPad

[Signe]

I'm just glad computers don't require you to do two things at once most of the time.  When they do, my brain mostly stops working and I become perfectly still.  This might be just the device for me!

[schild]

I think my problem with everything here is that this thing from anyone else would've been met with a total Meh. The ONLY reason we're even discussing it is because it's from Apple.

That's it.

It's the most closed computer ever made. Ever. I'm flabbergasted this has actually hit 5 pages on a gaming website. You know, a site where people boycott games because they have Starforce.

This is the Apple Starforce, you silly fuckers.

[Sky]

Windows is OS Starforce.

Consoles are gaming Starforce.

[schild]

You are a retarded sad clown that makes unfunny comments that you think pass as "jokes." Stop trying to make one-liners, it comes off as the desperate cry of an old man looking for acceptance.

Shut the fuck up.

[AutomaticZen]

I think my problem with everything here is that this thing from anyone else would've been met with a total Meh. The ONLY reason we're even discussing it is because it's from Apple.

That's it.

This is the cold, hard truth.  Tons of people had tablets at CES 2010.  Microsoft had their concept last year.  

If Acer or Asus or anyone else had dropped this specific product, it wouldn't get near this much press.

[Sky]

You are a retarded sad clown that makes unfunny comments that you think pass as "jokes." Stop trying to make one-liners, it comes off as the desperate cry of an old man looking for acceptance.

Shut the fuck up.

[schild]

No Sky, it's not why so serious. You have a fucking problem. Solve it on your own time and stop shitting up every fucking thread with your failed bullshit humor. Last Warning.

[Samwise]

I think my problem with everything here is that this thing from anyone else would've been met with a total Meh. The ONLY reason we're even discussing it is because it's from Apple.

That's it.

This is the cold, hard truth.  Tons of people had tablets at CES 2010.  Microsoft had their concept last year.  

If Acer or Asus or anyone else had dropped this specific product, it wouldn't get near this much press.

Shit, if Microsoft put out a platform where all of your apps had to be approved by Microsoft, the Mac faithful would be screaming bloody murder about it.

[naum]

I think my problem with everything here is that this thing from anyone else would've been met with a total Meh. The ONLY reason we're even discussing it is because it's from Apple.

That's it.

It's the most closed computer ever made. Ever. I'm flabbergasted this has actually hit 5 pages on a gaming website. You know, a site where people boycott games because they have Starforce.

This is the Apple Starforce, you silly fuckers.

Again, not exactly enamored with the device (unless price goes under $300), but the device is no more closed than a Kindle — unlike iPhone, you can drag files onto it from desktop, it can tackle .epub and .pdf formats (though Kindle does PDF, it's ebook is Amazon proprietary) and while I loathe the whole AppStore concept, it's not any different than the entire console market. iPhone/iPod/iPad development, in fact, is easier, less costlier and less troublesome than all those platforms (except, ironically Mac OS X, unlike the crippled world of Windows, where Apple ships the complete development tools (XCode/Interface Builder) used to build the suite of software that comes with the machine).

[naum]

It's the most closed computer ever made. Ever. I'm flabbergasted this has actually hit 5 pages on a gaming website. You know, a site where people boycott games because they have Starforce.

And while it may not be your cup of tea, game makers and game players are flocking to the platform, and growth is App Store transactions continues to arc up exponentially…

Again, despite my despising of the model and incessant Apple bashing, it is indeed relevant from a gaming perspective — that's (that and Facebook games) where the money and attention is going, like it or not…

[schild]

The Kindle isn't being marketed as a almost-computer. That particular comparison falls flat.

unlike the crippled world of Windows

wat

Why are you even comparing this to consoles anyway? I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. It seems like you're reaching for things just to make Apple not look ridiculously overprotective, or in Jobs case, an moneygrubbing douchebag egomaniac.

I do think they chose the right word for this event though, it certainly is a Creation, particularly with the Pollock like art used around its hype.

And while it may not be your cup of tea, game makers and game players are flocking to the platform, and growth is App Store transactions continues to arc up exponentially…

Again, despite my despising of the model and incessant Apple bashing, it is indeed relevant from a gaming perspective — that's (that and Facebook games) where the money and attention is going, like it or not…

I have an ipod and mac mini for iphone dev and am a game designer at a company exclusively making facebook games. Please to get with the program, I know far more about the whole thing on both sides than most. This isn't coming from some blind hate Apple position.

[AutomaticZen]

Again, not exactly enamored with the device (unless price goes under $300), but the device is no more closed than a Kindle — unlike iPhone, you can drag files onto it from desktop, it can tackle .epub and .pdf formats (though Kindle does PDF, it's ebook is Amazon proprietary) and while I loathe the whole AppStore concept, it's not any different than the entire console market. iPhone/iPod/iPad development, in fact, is easier, less costlier and less troublesome than all those platforms (except, ironically Mac OS X, unlike the crippled world of Windows, where Apple ships the complete development tools (XCode/Interface Builder) used to build the suite of software that comes with the machine).

Your second point is why I'm loving Android.  Development is around the same and it's open.  Tasty like wine.

Note:  For me personally, the Google Nexus was around the same hype, and again, was little more than a Meh.

[naum]

The Kindle isn't being marketed as a almost-computer. That particular comparison falls flat.

Then why is Amazon pushing it's own SDK and app store realm?

unlike the crippled world of Windows

wat

Mac OS X ships with C compiler and all the dev tools need to create pro apps. Windows OS does not provide such dev tools (no, C# does not count) — they must be obtained via additional costly purchases.

Why are you even comparing this to consoles anyway?

Because that's the market — Apple UI genius to give media consumption device without the need for fiddling with the likes of power users and more enlightened, savvy computer owners…

And while it may not be your cup of tea, game makers and game players are flocking to the platform, and growth is App Store transactions continues to arc up exponentially…

Again, despite my despising of the model and incessant Apple bashing, it is indeed relevant from a gaming perspective — that's (that and Facebook games) where the money and attention is going, like it or not…

I have an ipod and mac mini for iphone dev and am a game designer at a company exclusively making facebook games. Please to get with the program, I know far more about the whole thing on both sides than most. This isn't coming from some blind hate Apple position.

OK. What point are you making again?

[Teleku]

What don't you like about the app store concept?  I got a Mac Mini and have been fucking around with iPhone dev stuff (haven't actually made anything yet), and I think its pretty damn nice.

[Delmania]

Mac OS X ships with C compiler and all the dev tools need to create pro apps. Windows OS does not provide such dev tools (no, C# does not count) — they must be obtained via additional costly purchases.

That does not make Windows crippled.  I've heard the same argument for Ubuntu, in that build essentials and gcc are not a part of the main install.  The reason they are not is because the vast majority of users who use those operating systems do not use them.  That being said, how long has it been since you last look at the tools that are available for Windows developers?

Here's a list:

http://www.microsoft.com/exPress/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0k6kkbsd.aspx
http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/directx/default.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bb980924.aspx

If your perspective is that of a game developer looking to write games in C++, there is no reason to buy Visual Studio, as all that gives you is access to the MFC, and those are vastly inferior to anything in either the STL or Boost.

[Righ]

Why are you even comparing this to consoles anyway?

Presumably because consoles are well-known existing examples of computers which have been crippled by walled garden development environments which require developers to get the blessing of the application vendor. In the case of consoles, you presumably feel that this is reasonable because you accept that they are primarily devices for playing vendor-blessed games on and you are content with their limited purpose. Apple intends this device to be limited to browsing the web and reading newspapers, and most of the complaints levelled against the device are that it isn't a general-purpose computer that suits other needs. That's a reasonable criticism, but it doesn't mean that the device is bad for the purpose Apple want to sell it for, just that we don't want such a device or that we have alternative means of addressing the application which we feel are adequate (e-ink devices, laptops, netbooks). I think that this device is irritating to a lot of people because it mostly does hit a perceived need but falls short in a number of ways. However, nobody has ever made any money at all out of a tablet based PC, so there's good reason for Apple not to repeat everybody's failures in exactly the same ways. I'm not sure that going after the eBook/newspaper market will create the tablet PC market that every manufacturer has been hoping for for two decades, but Apple are relatively well-off - they can afford to be the next people to fuck up trying.

[naum]

Mac OS X ships with C compiler and all the dev tools need to create pro apps. Windows OS does not provide such dev tools (no, C# does not count) — they must be obtained via additional costly purchases.

That does not make Windows crippled.  I've heard the same argument for Ubuntu, in that build essentials and gcc are not a part of the main install.  The reason they are not is because the vast majority of users who use those operating systems do not use them.  That being said, how long has it been since you last look at the tools that are available for Windows developers?

How much additional money is required for Windows development tools? Visual Studio is not cheap. Yes, it been a few years since I was in world of Windows, but equivalent tools (XCode/Interface Builder) were costly. Are Windows apps being built with gcc now?

And it doesn't have to come pre-installed as even on Mac OS X, they come on the install disc (though typically, effortless migration simply updates your tools via internet DL).

Regarding my beef with Apple App Store — not the store concept enabling developers to get paid (even allotting for the 30% Apple tollbooth cut), but the draconian imposed guardian-ship that blocks apps not to their liking (anything that competes with their own software) or any arbitrary standard (be it NSFW, potential piracy concerns, aesthetics (yes, lots of apps have to hurdle over the look & feel aspects which Apple dictates UI standards imposing)).

Also, on the iP(hone|ad|od) OS platform, the charge on multitasking is shallow — the built-in Apple apps multitask, it's just your apps that are blocked from it.

[fuser]

How much additional money is required for Windows development tools? Visual Studio is not cheap. Yes, it been a few years since I was in world of Windows, but equivalent tools (XCode/Interface Builder) were costly. Are Windows apps being built with gcc now?

Visual Studio C++/Basic/C# Express editions are all free to download and use. Commercial licensing "there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Edition". Products were released in 06.

[Righ]

Also, on the iP(hone|ad|od) OS platform, the charge on multitasking is shallow — the built-in Apple apps multitask, it's just your apps that are blocked from it.

It's all about phone companies (well, one less than ideal phone company) and I'm convinced that if this were a wi-fi only device, it would also be a relatively open OS X device. With Flash.

[Delmania]

Presumably because consoles are well-known existing examples of computers which have been crippled by walled garden development environments which require developers to get the blessing of the application vendor.

Don't be retarded.  If I wanted to build an RPG for the Xbox 360, the Wii, or PS3, do I need submit my game for a review from Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony, in which they can reject it without telling me why?  Can they just decide to stop selling my game in their store because it suddenly conflicts with product they want to develop?  Of course not.  Console are more akin to Windows than Apple - the game manufacturer must of course ensure the  game is in the format expected by the console and  packaged on the appropriate media, but Nintendo is not able to ban the selling of the next Final Fantasy game because it bears a resemblance to the next Zelda game.  Furthermore, I do not need an account to a store run by the manufacturers to purchase the games, I can go to Best Buy and buy a cartridge.   I've read more than enough stories on both /. and Hacker News about people who games were either rejected with no reason given or their product was pulled because Apple thought it was a good idea and stole it from them.  There's an allegation going around that Apple ripped the design of iBooks from Delicious Books and didn't bother to pay anything to person who owns Delicious Monster. 

[Tarami]

no, C# does not count

You do realize large portion of the OSX applications available are written in Java - a language virtually identical in design and performance to C#? Java as a platform is however a little more mature than .NET thanks to having been around for longer.

If your perspective is that of a game developer looking to write games in C++, there is no reason to buy Visual Studio, as all that gives you is access to the MFC, and those are vastly inferior to anything in either the STL or Boost.

STL and Boost don't do GUI though (unlike MFC), they're just utility libraries. .NET/Forms or /WPF is largely used even for VC++ in my experience, since it now has extensions to handle managed resources (the .NET CLI.) Even Office 2007 does significant bits of GUI with C# (Office is like 20 million lines of code, so I doubt we'll see a full port anytime soon.)

And don't forget XNA if we're talking games. That also allows lets you build games for the XBox - in C#.

The deal is this: Noone cares about the "pro" (if pro means mucking about with low-level APIs) developers. They're an insignificant portion of the developer community. 99.9% only want to get shit done in an orderly and practical fashion, the exact implementation is irrelevant to pretty much any desktop application. Having to deal with an OS API is practically an argument against a platform. Abstraction is good, it lets us think larger and produce faster.

PS.
Visual Studio Express has pretty much everything but some enterprise tools, like more advanced debugging and some source code diagnostics. On the other hand, Visual Studio Team Suite is a massive set of tools few mortals can actually handle.

[KallDrexx]

Presumably because consoles are well-known existing examples of computers which have been crippled by walled garden development environments which require developers to get the blessing of the application vendor.

Don't be retarded.  If I wanted to build an RPG for the Xbox 360, the Wii, or PS3, do I need submit my game for a review from Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony, in which they can reject it without telling me why?  Can they just decide to stop selling my game in their store because it suddenly conflicts with product they want to develop?  Of course not.  Console are more akin to Windows than Apple - the game manufacturer must of course ensure the  game is in the format expected by the console and  packaged on the appropriate media, but Nintendo is not able to ban the selling of the next Final Fantasy game because it bears a resemblance to the next Zelda game.  Furthermore, I do not need an account to a store run by the manufacturers to purchase the games, I can go to Best Buy and buy a cartridge.   I've read more than enough stories on both /. and Hacker News about people who games were either rejected with no reason given or their product was pulled because Apple thought it was a good idea and stole it from them.  There's an allegation going around that Apple ripped the design of iBooks from Delicious Books and didn't bother to pay anything to person who owns Delicious Monster. 

Erm all 3 of those consoles have gate keepers that can (and have) rejected games, and you need an account with them to purchase online games.  Furthermore, at least 1 (microsoft) has been shown to cripple your hardware if they decide to ban you.  So not sure what your point is.

[Delmania]

Erm all 3 of those consoles have gate keepers that can (and have) rejected games, and you need an account with them to purchase online games.  Furthermore, at least 1 (microsoft) has been shown to cripple your hardware if they decide to ban you.  So not sure what your point is.

I stand partially corrected on 2 of the 3 things.  That being said, Microsoft will cripple the Xbox when they ban you.  So either you don't play on Xbox Live, or you don't do something that breaks the EULA and ToS.

STL and Boost don't do GUI though (unlike MFC), they're just utility libraries. .NET/Forms or /WPF is largely used even for VC++ in my experience, since it now has extensions to handle managed resources (the .NET CLI.) Even Office 2007 does significant bits of GUI with C# (Office is like 20 million lines of code, so I doubt we'll see a full port anytime soon.)

Your post reminded me about Qt, for some odd reason.
You're absolutely right in that neither the STL nor Boost do GUI, and if I was writing an application that needed a GUI, I'd use, as you pointed out, with WPF (with MVVM) or Windows Forms.  I was looking at it from the perspective of a game developer, who'd want to use either DirectX or OpenGL for the graphics themselves.  

[naum]

no, C# does not count

You do realize large portion of the OSX applications available are written in Java - a language virtually identical in design and performance to C#? Java as a platform is however a little more mature than .NET thanks to having been around for longer.

Like what? None of the apps I use on a daily basis are Java — all are XCode/IB built in Objective-C — Mail, TextMate, Safari, Chromium, Firefox (well, perhaps not Firefox, but it's certainly not Java), Terminal, etc.…

The deal is this: Noone cares about the "pro" (if pro means mucking about with low-level APIs) developers. They're an insignificant portion of the developer community. 99.9% only want to get shit done in an orderly and practical fashion, the exact implementation is irrelevant to pretty much any desktop application. Having to deal with an OS API is practically an argument against a platform. Abstraction is good, it lets us think larger and produce faster.

/true, but the apps and tools you use on a daily basis (and the games you play) are built with those "pro" tools…

On console games, you most certainly need to be "blessed" by console maker to publish a disc/cartridge game. Maybe not for Wii-ware, whatever it's called on Xbox 360, etc.… but even there, your app most definitely can be yanked off…

[naum]

Think Different

In the 70s, text ruled.  In the 90s, GUIs and mice ruled.  In the 10s, touch.

I can get to the Internet from my server, from my desktop, from my laptop, from my netbook, and from my phone.  While my next phone will undoubtedly support touch, my current one does not.  None of my other devices do, and frankly, they should not.

Imagine a 2.66GHz Intel computer with five USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 800 port, a mini-DVI port, and a DVD burner.  Comes with a wireless keyboard and a 9.7 inch wireless display.  The display is fully touch enabled, and can even support a virtual keyboard.  Yes, this system runs EMACs.  It also can run J2EE, Ruby on Rails, and Django.  The display connects to the base station via 802.11, and supports both canvas and AJAX.  Comes with OS/X, but you can also install Windows 7 and/or Linux alongside it if that is your preference.

Would such a system be worth $1,200?  If so, you can have it in 60 days: $599 + $499 + $69 + $25 + $5.

Even better, the system is modular.  You not only can connect to your base station, but to any node on the network, be it in a humble printer or the glorious cloud.  In fact, if you already have one or more of nodes that you are interested in, you can omit the base station and keyboard, and get started for half the price quoted above.

[Ingmar]

Would such a system be worth $1,200?

No.

[Righ]

Don't be retarded.

People who have mental impairments don't choose them, so it's rather stupid of you to ask somebody not to have such an impairment, irrespective of whether they do or don't. I might as well tell you not to be male or not to sweat.

Quit trolling, or at least be less fucking obvious about it.

[Tarami]

Like what? None of the apps I use on a daily basis are Java — all are XCode/IB built in Objective-C — Mail, TextMate, Safari, Chromium, Firefox (well, perhaps not Firefox, but it's certainly not Java), Terminal, etc.…

Few of these are applicable for what I'm talking about - they'd use assembly written in Sanskrit if they had to in order to get acceptable performance. Browsers are one of the areas where speed is important, because all they do is interpret languages like EcmaScript and parse and render CSS and markup, both of which are pretty costly to do. Mail is Apple's, isn't it? Terminal doesn't really motivate a higher level language.

My point isn't that there's isn't a place and time for C or even ASM, there are plenty of performance demanding situations where they're pretty much the only choice, it's that their accessibility isn't important for the viability of the OS as a development platform. In the age of Internet, bundling a C compiler is virtually pointless because the miniscule number of people that does want one knows where to find it (if it's at all available - which it is for discussed OS'es.) I think it would be more efficient to bundle Klik'n'Play than an Obj-C compiler. It'd certainly have more people go "hey, I can make stupid games with my Mac!" than bundling XCode does. How easy it is has very little to do with how easy the tools are to get, it has much more to do with how easy the tools are to use and that's where interpreted language like Java are useful.

[Salamok]

I think my problem with everything here is that this thing from anyone else would've been met with a total Meh. The ONLY reason we're even discussing it is because it's from Apple.

That's it.

This is the cold, hard truth.  Tons of people had tablets at CES 2010.  Microsoft had their concept last year.  

If Acer or Asus or anyone else had dropped this specific product, it wouldn't get near this much press.

Shit, if Microsoft put out a platform where all of your apps had to be approved by Microsoft, the Mac faithful would be screaming bloody murder about it.

If the approval process consisted of simply verifying an app cleanly uninstalls and had a $20 or less fee it would be a dream come true!

[Trippy]

Like what? None of the apps I use on a daily basis are Java — all are XCode/IB built in Objective-C — Mail, TextMate, Safari, Chromium, Firefox (well, perhaps not Firefox, but it's certainly not Java), Terminal, etc.…

Few of these are applicable for what I'm talking about - they'd use assembly written in Sanskrit if they had to in order to get acceptable performance. Browsers are one of the areas where speed is important, because all they do is interpret languages like EcmaScript and parse and render CSS and markup, both of which are pretty costly to do. Mail is Apple's, isn't it? Terminal doesn't really motivate a higher level language.

You are dodging the question. You claimed a large portion of Mac OS X applications are written in Java. That's simply not the case.

[Lounge]

Like what? None of the apps I use on a daily basis are Java — all are XCode/IB built in Objective-C — Mail, TextMate, Safari, Chromium, Firefox (well, perhaps not Firefox, but it's certainly not Java), Terminal, etc.…

Few of these are applicable for what I'm talking about - they'd use assembly written in Sanskrit if they had to in order to get acceptable performance. Browsers are one of the areas where speed is important, because all they do is interpret languages like EcmaScript and parse and render CSS and markup, both of which are pretty costly to do. Mail is Apple's, isn't it? Terminal doesn't really motivate a higher level language.

You are dodging the question. You claimed a large portion of Mac OS X applications are written in Java. That's simply not the case.

Java as a viable platform for mac development was deprecated in OS 10.4.  Very few mac applications with any reasonable sized user base are actually written in Java.   

[Tarami]

My mistake then in that case, for some reason I was pretty convinced of this. My sources are obviously old. Is Obj-C in other words the only viable option nowadays?

[Prospero]

Pretty much. That or one of the multiplatform frameworks; I've been playing with Titanium recently.

[Trippy]

My mistake then in that case, for some reason I was pretty convinced of this. My sources are obviously old. Is Obj-C in other words the only viable option nowadays?

The Mac OS X Cocoa framework is written in Objective-C. There are a handful of languages other than Objective-C that have Cocoa bindings (Java is one such language but as mentioned above the "bridge" bindings are no longer support by Apple past 10.4) but it's rare to see a Cocoa app, especially a commercial one, that isn't written in Objective-C. Carbon is another older framework that uses a C API which makes it easier to work with other languages but Apple has designated Cocoa as the preferred framework for UI work now so it would be unusual to see a (relatively) newly developed Mac OS X app written using Carbon.

If you don't care about creating a native UI you can of course use whatever other UI framework works on Mac OS X but in terms of apps that people actually use (e.g. not counting all the open source projects out there that nobody other than the author(s) use) there aren't many of those either. I use Wireshark and GIMP on occasion which are an X11/GTK applications and I would assume there are people running Eclipse (a Java IDE) on Mac OS X as well.

[Tarami]

Thanks for the update, what I was after was what it took to write an application that felt and looked like a native app - and in that case it's pretty much Obj-C, in other words. Which, in my opinion, isn't a good thing for Mac. In my mind it made sense to have "native" support for Java aswell, since it's quite a bit faster when efficiency isn't your main priority (because as said, it mostly isn't) -and- it has plenty of good, stable frameworks. What made Apple drop the Java binder?